, I think placebos typically are part of trials.
Don't think they capture "their psychological state and philosophical outlook" though.
Both Robert David Steele (denier, QAnon'er) and Irfan Halim (active medical doctor), for example, died due to the virus.

, just noticed you tagged me, but never got a notice. Maybe a forum bug. Well, hopefully Ο just goes away quickly, maybe giving someone a mild flu. :) Getting SARS-CoV-2 stomped down would be great.

The Telegraph may not be perfect, but I doubt that Nature is much better. — Apollodorus

You should put that in your profile.

3. Did R go well out of his way to unjustifiably put himself in harm's way?

Yes. — 180 Proof

This is what I would call an unclear statement without any attempt to mark out what is meant by ‘unjustifiably put himself in harm’s way’. Where is the line between justified and unjustified? To say he went ‘well out of his way’ is unclear. — I like sushi

Yeah, it was clear enough. Messed up kid in messed up society. (Didn't some cops also tell him to go home?)
Then again, doing hard time doesn't seem quite right either. Maybe that's one reason self-defense won, don't know.
A hero (of all things) he ain't. Someone needs to grow up.

Strictly speaking, the proper expression for existential quantification in mathematics is:

p = ∃x∈S φx

So, x is bound to set S.

(G) Gollum is more famous than Gödel. — Free Logic » 5.4 Logics of Fiction

Neat example. The statement is perfectly parsable and easy enough to understand, but not quite logical. I guess Anselmian ontology relies on such logic, just optimize/maximize x by a well-chosen φ, and even fictions come to life, "therefore Gollum exists".

A quick read

The universe may have answered The Last Question (Nov 13, 2021) by Tim Andersen

, thanks.

Yet another thing to read (Vacuum energy and cosmological evolution).

FYI, this stuff came up some time ago while discussing "symmetries" like this:



Things shrinking versus space expanding.
I haven't done the mathematics or other analysis.

EDIT ... :-/ the to-read list just keeps on growing ...

^{• Eternal inflation and its implications (2007)
• Our Universe May Exist in a Multiverse, Cosmic Inflation Discovery Suggests (2014)
• Before the Big Bang 5: The No Boundary Proposal (2017, 50m:47s)
• A smooth exit from eternal inflation? (2018)}

, , thanks lots.

Found something over here:

Dark energy might be neither particle nor field (Ethan Siegel; Big Think; Sep 22, 2021)



I guess relativistic spacetime geometry and quantum field theory has no good unification (at the moment at least), but that'd be needed to say much when experimental confirmation/falsification is unavailable.

Let it run. — Book273

Let SARS-CoV-2 replicate propagate mutate unchecked with no containment efforts, leaving whatever in its wake?

[...] I got the injection. It won't do shit anyway, but I get to keep working. Only now I have less respect for my employer, and I would love to park my truck on the CEO's face. — Book273

:D So you got the jab and are still around to whine about it huh huh...

Did you grow an extra arm yet? (pix or dint happen)

manifestly untrue — NOS4A2

Manifestly sweeping statement ignores context.

Say, once the virus has already spread wide, containment has already taken a turn for the worse.
Unfortunately, spread is often learned post-factum.

Say, the wider spread, the more likelihood of mutations.
Hopefully less transmissible/dangerous mutations, but it's kind of hard to say in advance (post-factum again).

Containment can be involved, and it's a team effort.
Presumably we agree on limiting the virus replicating, propagating, mutating?

, or any of the physics folks, a quick question ...

The expansion of the universe roughly means that mass or matter density decreases over time, matter dilutes, spreads, thins out spatially, apart from what gravity holds together. With entropy, the density tends to "even out".

Yet, despite the spatial expansion, the quantum energy density remains constant, or the average micro-chaos, in lack of a better term, per spatial unit does not change.

So, matter dilutes, energy of space itself does not. It's like space isn't "stretching", but rather ehh "growing", in lack of better verbiage.

(The micro-chaos largely "cancels out", so that we don't see a photon flying off in one direction, and an anti-photon flying off in another, at least not normally, but, also, the background quantum-scale energy isn't exactly zero.)

That's from memory (i.e. not reliable). Anyway, if I'm remembering right, then I think there might be some implications to how we think of these things, including conservation.

Living gives value, flourishing, exploring, participating, ...

The word "being" is used in ever so many ways.
I guess it's up to linguists and philosophers to clarify them.
One way is to differentiate fictional/imaginary and real, where "exists" sometimes is used instead of "real", though fictions exist too, they're just not real.
We might speak of ontological categories, like substance, event, property, relation, ...

In a general sense, being can have no complement.
Which is also why you can't really miss it.

And how do we explain the Olber's paradox if it really is infinite? — Echoes

Doesn't Olbers' paradox just apply to a "static universe"?
An infinite universe could still expand, so there'd be no such paradox.
I think the steady-state universe is one such model.

If the past is infinite then the present is the end of an infinite period of time, but an infinite period of time has no end. — Michael

No start, in this case.
But the argument is usually phrased as "cannot be completed", except it can, it just takes an infinity.
Of course, if you presuppose otherwise, then you won't get anywhere.
It's not a (purely) logical thing, unless you include things like the principle of sufficient reason.

_{• James Harrington
• Craig Skinner}

An infinite past of sequential events is illogical, though. If we imagine each second of the universe as a person counting then the present is that person having counted every integer up to 0 which makes no sense at all. — Michael

I wouldn't say illogical, at least doesn't derive a contradiction.
Counterintuitive perhaps?
There'd be no sufficient reason that 0 was reached at one particular moment, and not some other moment, any other moment.
Yet, with a definite earliest time, we similarly appear to run into such a violation, in that there'd be no sufficient reason for the universe being 14 billion years old, and not some other age, any other age.
Maybe the counterintuitive "edge-free", not infinite universe is the more intuitive after all?
Weird. :meh:
At least we might admit that we don't know, and will just have to let the universe tell its own story (evidence).

_{• Surprise: the Big Bang isn’t the beginning of the universe anymore by Ethan Siegel (Oct 20, 2021)
• The problem with the Big Bang theory by Don Lincoln (Nov 4, 2021)}

Found this fairly informative (has links to studies):

COVID's endgame: Scientists have a clue about where SARS-CoV-2 is headed (Oct 29, 2021)

I suppose this is as well, except in a different way, the way that makes you shake your head:

Big Bird got 'vaccinated' against COVID-19, drawing outrage from Republicans (Nov 8, 2021)

That's a bit shallow, sought, don't you think, ? Drop "the common good" sloganeering, et voilà, sewage systems and clean water is common good. Not sure why you'd complain about that. It's not particularly about "the state" either, but about doing them. We can, and do, figure out common good.

, , *haha* that is kind of funny. :D (I mean, not as a political or defamatory statement or anything like that, just the flatulent incident, not a huge embarrassment either.)

, not quite so good after all, eh? Unlike infrastructure, electricity, clean water, sewage systems, respect as the default, organized health care, generally available education/school, whatever it all may be. We can, and do, figure out common good. Even if some sloganize and abuse verbiage.

“The common good” is a phrase collectivists and utilitarians break out now and again to justify their schemes. You pretend to know it is, how to attain it, and then stack bodies to reach it. — NOS4A2

Nonsense. :down:

Randians. :roll:


_{• Common good (Wikipedia)
• The Common Good (SEP)
• What Is the Common Good in Political Science? Definition and Examples (Robert Longley)}

Late Halloween entertainment

The Cult of Fools – “Trump Empire in Financial Trouble” – Oct 31, 2021

How to present nonsense to, and spread fear among, the gullible ...

Official Government Reports suggest the Fully Vaccinated will develop Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome by Christmas (Oct 27, 2021)

The executive summary: if you had COVID-19 vaccines, then you'll probably have AIDS before the end of the year.

What I assume you consider valuable members of society put everyone else at risk every day. They step in cars, they don't get their flu shots, they procreate, they smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, etc.
To cherry pick one particular risk and assign it so much weight is completely inconsistent and unconvincing. — Tzeentch

Err two wrongs still don't make a right.
We still have to deal with the darn virus.

Chardin, a Catholic priest said, God, is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man. — Athena

Here are some snippets I know of, going way back ...

God sleeps in the rock, dreams in the plant, stirs in the animal, and awakens in man. — Ibn Arabi (1165-1240), scholar, mystic, poet, philosopher

The divine spirit slumbers in the stone, dreams in the animal, and is awake in man. — Schelling (1775-1854), Romanticist, idealist, philosopher

Live not the stars and mountains?
Are waves
Without a spirit?
Are the dropping caves
Without a feeling in their silent tears? — Byron (1788-1824), Romanticist, poet

Personification.

A lot of arguments ensue from the fact that empirical philosophy proceeds as if there is no observer to be taken into account. — Wayfarer

Or any observer?
Quantum weirdness is more about any interaction than a conscious observer consciously observing.
At least in experiments, minimization of (uncontrolled) variables tends to be desirable.

Schrödinger’s Cat – Still Not Dead (Hossenfelder; Feb 27, 2021)

Put in that way, it is true. The issue is articulating what is that "which gives rise to these considerations".

Sense data? I don't know. — Manuel

I guess, when you go chat with your neighbor, their reactions are to what you see in a mirror, something like that?
There are some ramblings in this old post.
Say, when something relevant/significant differentiates hallucinations and perception, then it's the perceived.
We learn of things extra-self (be they rocks or other people) by interaction, not by becoming them.
But of course you can't escape yourself, that's just nonsense, can't escape the means of learning about things and understanding them, while still wanting to do that — perception, consciousness, ... — those are inherently part of yourself when occurring, part of your (ontological) makeup.
Mere existence (be it of rocks or other people) is different from figuring out what it all is, which is both more involving and interesting.

Why universalize self-dependence...? :brow: Crazytalk.

So the universe is not quite as you thought it was. You'd better rearrange your beliefs, then. Because you certainly can't rearrange the universe. — Isaac Asimov (1941, 1990)

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. — Philip K Dick (1978)

Point me to the person I hurt by refusing this vaccine, and I will take responsibility. — Tzeentch

Except, once you "take responsibility" it might be too late.
That's not taking responsibility, it's irresponsible. :fire:

Should SARS-CoV-2 be left to replicate propagate mutate unchecked with no containment efforts, leaving whatever in its wake, as your sentiment suggests? :down:
Should asymptomatic pathogen factories (active carriers) be treated/avoided? :up:
COVID-19 isn't really bad, but it's bad enough, and doesn't care about people's ideologies; could be a suitable rehearsal for a worse one.
The right thing to do is to stomp the pathogen down, learn, and get on with things.

I guess you could stay away from others, or get tested before freely intermingling with the unsuspecting?

, instead of "an actual world", I'd use "the actual world", but maybe that's just me?

1. X is a possible world ∧ X is not the actual world = X is a possible world but not our's

Say, one where Napoleon drowned by suicide. At least that seems possible.

2. X is a possible world ∧ X is the actual world = X is our world

Or, instead of "an actual world", we could use "a real world", i.e. not fictional or merely imagined, despite being unknown to us.

1. X is a possible world ∧ X is not real = a possible world but imaginary/fictional

2. X is a possible world ∧ X is real = our world or another real world (unknown to us)

(Technically, there's a presumption that our world is a self-consistent whole, but that doesn't seem controversial; either way, the possible world semantics, I think, is intended to allow reasoning that includes our world, the actual world.)

If that makes any sense...

, something's a bit off. By "the actual world" we normally just mean our world.

All possible worlds are actual worlds. — TheMadFool

With this (I think) you're moving towards modal realism, which means that all possible worlds are real, like our's is real.

A possible world need not be real, just possible, or let's say a self-consistent whole, if you will, even if hypothetical/imaginary/fictional.

When crafting definitions so, then of course there's no logical/scientific dis/proof.

It's not that hard to craft a definitional proposition so that both the proposition and its negation are compatible with all evidence. Like a difference that makes no difference (except Bateson used that phrase differently).

With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple procedure by which claims can be counter/evidence-immunized, converging on such propositions. With the invisible gardener, John Wisdom expressed something similar. Say, when the Olympians were nowhere to be found once people started looking (and could), the deities became "relocated" to some "otherworldly" realm.
The immunization procedure.
Thus, Tillich, Eagleton, and Whalon learned from the best, and now declare "God does not exist", yet in the same breath also declare "I believe God is". :D If we take existence to include reality, fictions/imaginations (fictions exist too, they're just not real), thinking (might occur when reading the forums), whatever, then their strange verbiage leads to "God" as "something" of which nothing much can be said. Neither here nor there, a ghost of bewitching language.

I guess you could show something, and then identify that as "God", which hence exists, or come up with a definition and determine that it refers to something real, just what you were looking for, "God". Just have to keep in mind that definitions are ours — there are no running elephants in dictionaries/encyclopedias, though we might find evidence of a stampede out there.

Misinformed horse uses COVID-19 vaccine to treat worm infestation (Oct 28, 2021)

, you don't think breast cancer prevention is cool...? :brow: How odd. It'd be a great accomplishment, Nobel material. Know/knew anyone with breast cancer?


_{• Breast Cancer Prognosis: Survival Rates by Stage, Age, and Race
• Breast Cancer Statistics
• Breast Cancer: Statistics}

Trial announced for 'first-of-its-kind' vaccine to prevent breast cancer (Oct 27, 2021)

Genuine medical progress, a great scientific achievement, if it pans out.

What will the anti-vaxxers say, though?

Trial announced for 'first-of-its-kind' vaccine to prevent breast cancer (Oct 27, 2021)

Genuine medical progress, a great scientific achievement, if it pans out.

What will the anti-vaxxers say, though?

, oh, I might'a misread, was just wondering about the something → (intellect) → tree thing.

We see.....sense..... something directly. It isn’t a tree until the intellect gets done with it, somewhere downstream in the mental process. — Mww

Hmm... Are you made by someone seeing...sensing...something, which then becomes you, once their intellect gets done with it...? Or, are you referring to someone's perception alone, rather than you?

You can't comprehend color just as I can. — GraveItty

Well, your experience happens to you (as also set out above). They're part of your (ontological) makeup when occurring.

Another aspect: I can't (even in principle) experience your self-awareness, since then I'd be you instead. Self-awareness is indexical. This stuff is pervaded by self-reference. And happenings (temporal).

We can still chit-chat about the world, though, including self-awareness. Meaningfully, too. Or we'd have no forums. :)

doesn't explain my conscious feeling — GraveItty

Right, no comprehensive explanations.
My comments at least (612641, 612834) are just about delineation.
Giving up (or mystification) not really warranted, and epistemophobia is irrational.

^{Pop: Neuroscientists Have Followed a Thought as It Moves Through The Brain (Jan 18, 2018)
Paper: Persistent neuronal activity in human prefrontal cortex links perception and action (Dec 18, 2017)}

Consciousness simply can't be explained. — GraveItty

It's obvious to everyone, but it's an object for no-one. — Wayfarer

Spatiotemporal analysis (with evidence):

Say, my supper is locatable, left-to-right, movable, breakable (i.e. object-like), my experiences thereof occur, come and go, are interruptible (i.e. process-like).

• Suppose x is defined as non-spatial, "outside of space". Well, then obviously x is nowhere to be found, no place. Cannot have any extent, volume/area/length, not even zero-dimensional (like a mathematical singularity).
· A demarcation: objects are spatial, left to right, front to back, top to bottom, locatable, movable, breakable (under conservation).

• Suppose x is defined as atemporal, "outside of time". Well, then x was/is nowhen, no simultaneity. No duration involved, cannot change, can't be subject to causation, can't interact, inert and lifeless (at most).
· A demarcation: processes are temporal, come and go, occur, interruptible (interaction/event-causation).

The closest to non-spatiotemporal in the literature seems to be abstracts, like sterile inhabitants of Platonia.

Minds partake in the world, interact, both ways, are active, are in fact parts of the world. It's a hallmark that minds are temporal, process-like; experiences come and go, occur, are interruptible.

Some entertain the notion that consciousness is a container (e.g. of experiences) that can be empty, yet the only evident container is the body.

Note, though, there is a sort of space-time duality here (distinct from substance dualism). Mind isn't object-like, that'd be a category mistake, rather mind is more clearly process-like.

We do know some things, but we don't know exactly what it all is, and, perhaps more pertinently, we don't know what it can all do together. Mystifying isn't a particularly good response as such.